Govinda Menon, J.-I am in agreement with the conclusion arrived at by my learned brother though I would like to state the reasons for arriving at that conclusion in my own way.

It is clear from the evidence of P.W.2 that the first defendant and his father were carrying on grocery business in Mannargudi and in another village befor they became divided. Under the partition the old grocery business with all its assets and liabilities were allotted to the share of the father and the first defendant was given for his share five acres and 70 cents of land charged with a debt of Rs. 700. Even before the partition, the first defendant had started a business of his own which he continued afterwards. This business consisted of importing goods like areca-nuts, etc. from Ceylon, Burma and Singapore. The question is whether this business can be styled as the ancestral trade of defendants 2 to 4. The learned Subordinate Judge was of the opinion that as the old grocery business which had been carried on by the father of the first defendant had not been continued by the first defendant after the partition, it cannot be said that he was carrying on an ancestral business with the result tha